Trump’s Chief-of-Staff calls aspects of Islam ‘Problematic’ — Are They?

/in , , , , , /by

The Trump administration is about to make huge decisions based on the answer. My latest in PJ Media:

President-elect Trump’s new chief of staff Reince Preibus touched the political third rail Sunday when he enunciated a truth that is almost universally denied. Even those who know it to be true seldom dare speak it in public.

Aspects of Islam are … “problematic.”

Priebus uttered this momentous word when he was asked on ABC about remarks made by Trump’s choice for national security advisor, Michael Flynn, about political aspects of Islam. Priebus responded:

Clearly, there are some aspects of that faith that are problematic and we know them, we’ve seen it. It certainly isn’t a blanket for all people of that faith, but Mike Flynn is one of the most highly respected intelligence officers in America. Certainly no one can deny that.

Certainly not, but many people do deny that anything about Islam is “problematic.” Hillary Clinton famously declared the following in 2015:

Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

Clinton wasn’t just stating her own opinion. She was repeating official Obama administration policy — and what certainly would have been the policy of her administration, had she become president.

Priebus’ “problematic” comment comes after a campaign during which Trump repeatedly criticized Clinton for refusing to name the enemy as “radical Islam.” Clearly, the Trump administration intends to take a new direction regarding the jihad threat.

We can be just as certain that the Leftist political establishment and media will excoriate Trump for supposedly alienating peaceful Muslims and driving them towards jihad by calling their religion “problematic.”

So, major policy decisions are about to turn on this question: is anything about Islam actually “problematic”?

Certainly, jihad terrorists routinely — or primarily — invoke the Qur’an and Muhammad’s example to justify their actions and to recruit peaceful Muslims.

Abdullah Azzam — who, along with Osama bin Laden, co-founded al-Qaeda — wrote in his book length exhortation to jihad, Join the Caravan, that “the Prophet (SAWS) was a master of the Mujahideen” who “used to go out on military expeditions or send out an army at least every two months.”

Are Muhammad’s “military expeditions” in any way “problematic”? Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd explains:

If we follow the rules of interpretation developed from the classical science of Koranic interpretation, it is NOT possible to condemn terrorism in religious terms.It remains completely true to the classical rules in its evolution of sanctity for its own justification. This is where the secret of its theological strength lies.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow 9/11 defendants, in their lengthy apologia for 9/11, explicitly depicted it as an Islamic jihad attack:

Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.

Indeed, Taliban terrorist Baitullah Mehsud declared:

Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfill God’s orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world.

So, these terrorist leaders certainly found Islam to be “problematic.” Are these terrorists “extremists”?

Well — even though they were all devout Muslims determined to follow their religion properly — we should first turn to the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib), to answer that question.

Shafi’i school:A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, perhaps the leading authority in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy.

When discussing jihad, that manual stipulates that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians … until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.”

It added a comment from Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) … while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (Reliance of the Traveller, o9.8).

Of course, there is no caliph today, unless one accepts the claims of the Islamic State, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama, et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad.

However — they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad. Defensive jihad needs no state authority to initiate it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (Reliance of the Traveller, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked.

And the defensive jihad is not declared over when peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals is achieved. Reliance of the Traveller specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.”

After that? “[N]othing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).

Sounds problematic.

Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions.It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons. From the call to Islam,

“ … the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”

However:

“[I]f the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II. 140)

Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes:“[In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.”

In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as “radical” or “fundamentalist” Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist.He directed:

“[S]ince lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”

This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam. Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:

“The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world …

The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)”

Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, is an assistant professor on the faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes Twelfth Century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd:

“Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book (the Jews) … is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.”

Nyazee concludes:

“This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation.”

The authoritative sources from these four schools of Islamic jurisprudence not only claim that Islam has “problematic” aspects, they claim that the “problematic” aspects are not “radical” commands — they are in fact central to Islam.

Further, this is to say nothing of the many, many passages of the Qur’an exhorting believers to wage war against unbelievers.

It would be illuminating if Hillary Clinton or John Kerry or Pope Francis or one of the others who maintain that Islam is a religion of peace produced some quotations from Muslim authorities they consider “authentic.”

Also, they would need to explain why the authorities I’ve quoted above, and others like them, are inauthentic.

While no single Muslim authority can proclaim what is “authentic” Islam, and thus it would be prudent not to make sweeping statements about what “authentic Islam” actually is, clearly many Muslims believe that authentic Islam sanctions violence against non-Muslims — and they can offer centuries of common, popular Islamic literature to back their belief….

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Keith Ellison headlined fundraiser for Muslim activist who called for “Palestinians” to embrace “The Jihad Way”

Obama administration in its death throes still covering up key details of Iran deal

Keith Ellison tied to Muslim who called for ‘Palestinians’ to embrace ‘the Jihad way’

/in , , , , , , /by

Ellison has spoken at a convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Yet ISNA has actually admitted its ties to Hamas, which styles itself the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Justice Department actually classified ISNA among entities “who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood.”

It gets worse. In 2008, Ellison accepted $13,350 from the Muslim American Society (MAS) to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. The Muslim American Society is a Muslim Brotherhood organization: “In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.” That’s from the Chicago Tribune in 2004, in an article that is now carried on the Muslim Brotherhood’s English-language website, Ikhwanweb.

Also, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) raised large amounts of for Ellison’s first campaign, and he has spoken at numerous CAIR events. Yet CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups.

This is today’s Democratic Party.

“Keith Ellison Headlined Fundraiser For Muslim Activist Who Called For Palestinians To Embrace ‘The Jihad Way,’” by Chuck Ross, Daily Caller, November 21, 2016 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, the favorite to take over as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, campaigned in 2009 for a Libya-born activist who once called on Palestinians to embrace “the jihad way” in order to get free of Israeli control.

The activist, Esam Omeish, a former candidate for Virginia state delegate, has also praised one of the founders of Hamas and commended the work of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Omeish’s positions had been publicized when Ellison, the first Mulsim [sic] ever elected to Congress, headlined the July 2009 fundraiser for Omeish, who served as president from 2004 to 2008 of the Muslim American Society, a Muslim Brotherhood-linked group.

“The very fact that you have ran a honorable campaign in this heated primary shows victory. Don’t stop working, lay it all on the line,” Ellison said at the event, according to Omeish’s campaign website.

Photos from the event show Ellison chatting with Omeish and other activists, such as Nihad Awad, the founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Progressive liberals, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, have pushed for Ellison to be named as head of the DNC. But Ellison’s critics have pointed to his links to extremist organizations such as the Nation of Islam — he first ran for office in 1998 under the name Keith Ellison-Muhammad — and his comments regarding Israel as cause for concern.

The Washington Free Beacon reported further on Monday that Ellison, who entered Congress in 2007, also took a trip to Mecca, the Islamic holy site, in late-2008. The junket, which cost $13,500 and sparked a House Ethics investigation, was paid for by the Muslim American Society (MAS).

It is unclear if Omeish was in charge of MAS when Ellison took the trip.

A year before, Omeish was forced by then-Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine to resign his position on a state immigration commission after video footage from 2000 surfaced showing him condemning Israel and endorsing “the jihad way.”

“We the Muslims of the Washington metropolitan area are here today…to tell our brothers and sisters in [Palestine] that you have learned the way, that you have known that the jihad way is the way to liberate your land,” Omeish told the crowd, which included protesters holding signs equating the Star of David to a Nazi swastika.

“Dr. Omeish is a respected physician and community leader, yet I have been made aware of certain statements he has made which concern me,” Kaine said in 2007, after announcing that Omeish would be replaced at the Virginia immigration commission because of the video.

Omeish, who ended up losing the Virginia delegate contest, spouted fiery, anti-Israel rhetoric again at a rally held in Oct. 2000 in front of the Israeli embassy in Washington D.C. There, he praised an intifada the Palestinians were waging against Israel.

“We need to congratulate our brothers and sisters in Philistine [Palestine] for their bravery, for their giving up their lives for the sake of Allah and for the sake of Al-Aqsa.”

Omeish was referring either to the Al-Aqsa intifada, a deadly campaign in which Palestinian suicide bombers carried out attacks against Israelis, or the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, a terrorist group that formed in the West Bank in 2000.

In 2004, after he took over at MAS, Omeish praised Ahmed Yassin, one of the founders of Hamas, the terrorist group.

“Bullets and bombs are going off upon our brothers in Philistine [Palestine] and we are sitting here and saying [Arabic phrase], instead of feeling that this is our tax money and it is our dollars that killed our beloved Sheikh Ahmed Yassin,” Omeish said during a speech in Overland Park, Kan….

Irony: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer voted for ‘The Wall’ in 2006

/in , , , , , , /by

It is ironic that in 2006 a bill was introduced to build a wall on the Southern border of the United States. The bill was passed with bi-partisan support and signed into law by former President George W. Bush.

What is even more amazing is that then Senators Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the new minority leader of the U.S. Senate Chuck Schumer all voted to build the wall.

In a Daily Signal article titled In 2006, These Democrats Still in Office Voted to Build a Wall by Rachel Stoltzfoos () notes:

Editor’s note: During an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, Sen. Chuck Schumer declared, “We’re not going to help [Trump] build his wall.” Schumer was one of the Democrats to support construction of a wall in 2006.

Democrats are already grumbling about Donald Trump’s proposed border wall, though Barack Obama and other leaders in their party voted not so long ago for George W. Bush’s proposal to build a major wall on the border with Mexico.

[ … ]

Then-Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton were among the 26 Democrats who approved the bill. Supporters also included Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is set to take over leadership of the Senate for Democrats in 2016.

Other Democrats in the Senate who voted for the wall in 2006 are Sens. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio—then in the House), Tom Carper (Del.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), and Ron Wyden (Ore.).

There are also a number of Democrat representatives still in the House who voted for the bill: Sanford Bishop (Ga.), Corrine Brown (Fla.), Michael Capuano (Mass.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Jim Costa (Calif.), Peter DeFazio (Ore.), Steve Israel (N.Y.), Ron Kind (Wis.), Daniel Lipinski (Ill.), Stephen Lynch (Mass.), Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.), Bill Pascrell Jr. (N.J.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.), Tim Ryan (Ohio), and Adam Smith (Wash.).

Former Democrat Rep. Barney Frank and now-disgraced former Democrat Rep. Anthony Weiner also voted for the bill.

What is more interesting is that Democrats face Armageddon in 2018 with 25 Democrats and the 2 Senate Independents up for re-election. Here’s the list:

Florida Republican who killed pro-gun bills loses seat, gives hope to 2A advocates by Chris Eger

/in , , , , , /by

A powerful south Florida state senator who repeatedly sidelined popular gun rights legislation lost his seat Tuesday, opening the door for campus carry and open carry in the Sunshine State.

Florida State Sen. Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, R-Miami, chairs the Senate Criminal Justice Committee and in 2015 refused to hold hearings on a bill to allow legal concealed carry on public colleges and universities. Diaz de la Portilla was also a fly in the ointment when it came to derailing an emergency concealed carry bill the year before and in 2016 was key in killing bills on campus carry and open carry, refusing to even meet with advocates.

However, even though he was supported by a $85,000 ad campaign paid for by Everytown, state Rep. Jose Javier Rodriguez, a Democrat, beat Diaz de la Portilla in this week’s election.

While the loss of his seat was balanced out in the Senate by Democratic Sen. Dwight Bullard’s defeat by Republican Rep. Frank Artiles, sustaining the GOP with a 25-15 majority in the chamber, gun rights advocates argue the vanquished lawmaker simply reaped what he sowed.

“Senator Diaz de la Portilla broke his word,” Marion Hammer, executive director of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida and a former National Rifle Association president, told Guns.com Wednesday. “He betrayed gun owners and bragged about it. People know not to trust a man who not only breaks his word but then brags about being deceitful. He engineered his own defeat.”

Further, with Diaz de la Portilla out of the mix next year, open carry advocates see the upcoming session as a bright one provided the state’s high court hasn’t already stricken an ongoing lawsuit against the prohibition.

“Betrayal of gun owners is not the way for a Republican to win re-election,” Sean Caranna, executive director of Florida Carry, told Guns.com. “Assuming that the Florida Supreme Court has not ruled yet on the Norman case before the legislative session, we will be back with the same open carry bill that passed the Florida House last year.”

Those in support of dropping gun free zones at the state’s public colleges and universities also see hope with Diaz de la Portilla’s Tallahassee privileges revoked.

“We are in a very advantageous political position this year, especially now that Diaz de la Portilla cannot block our efforts,” Bekah Hargrove, a member of the board of directors for Florida Students for Concealed Carry, said in an email to Guns.com. “The people have shown they do not appreciate politicians who lie and advance their own agenda, while ignoring the wishes of their constituents. We have been planning a major effort for this the upcoming session and with this news, our supporters will be even more energized to fight for the rights of Floridians.”

The regular session of the new Florida Senate convenes on March 7, 2017.

I have a reasonable fear of radical Islam

/in , , , , , /by

Isn’t “Phobia” a type of mental disorder, an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something? Isn’t the “Islamophobia” motion which was ‘unanimously’ passed by the Canadian Government which calls for limiting the rights of Canadians to criticize Islam, contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

The definition of Islamophobia from a Google search is dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.

What exactly has the Parliament of Canada petitioned against? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muhammad? Criticism and condemning the Islamic State and all Islamic terrorist groups affiliated with radical Islamic ideology? Petitioning against those Canadians who Condemn Sharia law? If Canadians criticize Islam or convert from Islam, will they now be considered an “Islamophobe” by Canada?

Is Canada Planning to Make Criticizing Islam Illegal?

What’s next? Sending Iran and Hamas type morality police to the doorsteps of Canadians critical of Islam, while radical imams continue to spew openly radical Ideas in schools and mosques? What about Canadians who are suspicious of others plotting possible terrorist activities – will they be afraid to report it to authorities in case they are wrong?

The petition your government recently passed a motion for was initiated on June 8, 2016 by Samer Majzoub, President of the Canadian Muslim Forum condemning Islamophobia in “all” forms.

The details in the petition which was sponsored by the Liberal MP are extremely sketchy to say the least- e-411 for the parliamentary petition:

“We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.”

Again I say, please keep in mind Islamophobia’s definition.

Is Canada Planning to Make Criticizing Islam Illegal?

It seems that many Western politicians, the “Mainstream Media”, and our political elites use the term “Islamophobia” without even knowing what is in Islam. There might be lot to rationally be “phobic”, or simply fearful, about.

Since Trudeau Liberals came to power, Canadians have been constantly reminded that to speak negatively about Islam is supposedly acting as a fear-mongering, racist, xenophobic, “Islamophobe”.

It is far more probable that they are none of those things; rather that it is the accusers who are racist (Quran: 2;65; 2.89 (Allah transforms Jews into apes); 3:110-112; 4;160, and on and on); Xenophobic really does not apply to Jews, Christians, Yazidis, Hindus, Kurds, Baha’is , Zoroastrians, and a few different sects of Islam; it is truly the other way around.

These people are rightfully afraid of harm coming to them from Sharia law and radical Islam. I am a living example of one who has experienced harm from radical Islamic Sharia law. I was imprisoned at age 16 by the Iranian Regime for simply expressing my disagreement with their policies. They held me prisoner for 18 months in their notorious Evin Prison; I miraculously escaped the murder and rape I heard every day in that dark place.

The memories of that season still haunt me today. And, their threats still follow me today, to this great land of Canada. Therefore, I have a reasonable fear of radical Islam. To call my fear a phobia, an irrational fear, lacks compassion and fails to recognize the true reality of the same present danger living close to me once again. I am on their hit list. It was reported that the highest commander of the IRGC very recently said they would soon kill all dissidents living abroad.

People who are jittery about radical Islam and Sharia law are this way for many a reason: They look at how Sharia law is practiced in Saudi Arabia, Iran, by Islamic State and Nigeria’s Boko Haram, and are concerned quite justifiably.

The Islamic Cairo Declaration of 1990, written as a direct refutation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that all human rights are predicated on Islamic Sharia Law. Therefore, according to this view, beheading, stoning, flogging, slavery, child marriage, wife-beating, amputations, and a woman’s worth considered half of a man’s are all human rights. Is that what we want for Canada, or in Canada? Or, in and for any country?

All that these purported critics are doing is pointing out what is in Islam’s Sharia law if anyone cared to look. And, when it comes to concern with quality of life, people should care to look. What is it that these extremists are so eager to cover up?

To those of us who have experienced Islamic sharia law first-hand, protecting Western values – free speech, common law, equal justice under the law, democratic (“man-made”) governance; individual freedoms, separation of church and state, an independent judiciary, to name just a few – is indeed cause for concern. Every single one of them is contradicted by Islamic Sharia law or radical Islam.

Why should it be against the law to outspokenly disagree with aspects of a different religion or culture? Especially if it outspokenly threatens one’s own?

Interesting to note, there are no such terms as Christianophobia, or Judeophobia, that define a dislike or prejudice against a Judeo Christian worldview and Jews and Christians, especially as a political force. And, when Googling anti Zionism, a photo appears of Islamist Muslims condemning Jews and a State of Israel. What if Christians and Jews petitioned for anti Christianophobia and anti Judeophobia motions condemning “all” forms of these? Would we all put duct tape on our mouths? And, it is true that Christians and Jews would never be allowed to petition for this in any Middle Eastern country on the face of the planet.

Canadians are worried that with the Rise of Islamic Extremism In Canada , the country is on its way to becoming like Europe, with no-go zones. That is why we must keep the secular state and religion completely separate, so that no one’s religion, and in Islam’s case religious ideology, is given special treatment or singled out.

Our goal is, and must remain, equal treatment for all. Equality and pluralistic respect can only be achieved when the government acts constitutionally without bias or favoritism towards any particular religion or religious ideology. Our Western Constitution is one that is founded upon the notion that all men, and women, are created equally, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; free from the harassment of oppressive tyranny inspired by dogma of any sort; religious or political.

It is also important to know who sponsors such articles in the media and why politicians lack information to make accurate assessments and informed conclusions.

For more information, please read about Politics of ‘Islamophobia’ – source of, and purpose of the term.

In Islam, politics and religion are inseparably intertwined. For this reason, apostasy in Islam is equivalent to treason. A notable expression in Islam says it all, “Islam is a religion and a state.” The Penal Code of The Islamic Republic of Iran Mandates Death for Converts. Article 225-1 of this code reads, “Any Muslim who clearly announces that he/she has left Islam and declares blasphemy is an Apostate.” In the Qur’an, Bukhari (52:260) repeats this view clearly: “The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’” According to Ayatollah Khorasani, a prominent Shiite leader in Iran, “The promotion of Christianity in Iran must be stopped and stated that The Bible (The Gospel) is distorted and the Bible is not the Word of God.” (Farsi)

The Ayatollah’s views are directly of a mind with statements found in the Quran. Verses supporting death for apostates in the Qur’an are: 2:217, 9:73-74, 88:21, 5:54, and 9:66.

Article 19: Universal Declaration of Human Rights States:” Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Canadians must have the right to critique any ideology or religion. Preventing Canadians from speaking about Islam, is about denying Canadians the right to warn about a potential threat to their nation. A warning is not treason, but preventing a warning is. Isn’t this government sponsored Petition against the laws of the Constitution of Canada? CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 PART I

If the government prevents us the right to criticize any ideology, our government overrides our most basic freedom—the freedom of speech—and at the same time will undermine diversity, the “value” the Trudeau Liberals take pride the most in.

“Islamophobia” is used as a tool by political Islam to shut down criticism of Islam. At what point does western civilization demand that as a free society, all ideological matters conform to some common ground?

Can Canada simply ignore what is happening particularly in Europe, no-go-zones? Many places in Europe have become a breeding ground for radical Islam where they enforced their own sharia law.

Again, Canadians are worried that with the Rise of Islamic Extremism In Canada, the country is on its way to becoming like Europe, with no-go zones.

That is why we must keep the secular state and religion completely separate, so that no one’s religion, and in Islam’s case religious ideology, is given special treatment or singled out.

Our goal is, and must remain, equal treatment for all. Equality and pluralistic respect can only be achieved when the government acts constitutionally without bias or favoritism towards any particular religion or religious ideology.

Our Western Constitution is one that is founded upon the notion that all men, and women, are created equally, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, free from the harassment of oppressive tyranny inspired by dogma of any sort; religious or political.

In reference to the above, I urge you to take the time and read the following article by Canadian investigative journalist, Christine Williams – “Canadian parliament passes anti-Islamophobia motion!”

Turning Point USA publishes list of radical professors — Is one teaching your kid?

/in , , , , /by

In an email titled “Are these radicals teaching your kids?” Turning Point USA writes:

It’s no secret that some of America’s college professors are totally out of line.

Everyday I hear stories about professors who attack and target conservatives, promote liberal propaganda, and use their position of power to advance liberal agendas in their classroom.

Turning Point USA is saying enough is enough.  It’s time we expose these professors.

Today, Turning Point USA is proud to announce the launch of ProfessorWatchList.org, a website dedicated to documenting and exposing professors who discriminate against conservative students and promote anti-American, left wing propaganda in the classroom.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL LIST ON PROFESSORWATCHLIST.ORG

Meet some of the professor’s profiled….

Dr. Charles Angeletti

Dr. Charles Angeletti is a tenured professor at Metropolitan State University Denver. He required students to recite a pledge that describes a racist, sexist, homophobic America: “I pledge allegiance to and wrap myself in the flag of the United States Against Anything Un-American and to the Republicans for which it stands, two nations, under Jesus, rich against poor, with curtailed liberty and justice for all except blacks, homosexuals, women who want abortions, Communists, welfare queens, treehuggers, feminazis, illegal immigrants, children of illegal immigrants, and you if you don’t watch your step.”

Dr. Mireille Miller-Young

Dr. Mireille Miller-Young is an Associate Professor of Feminist Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Miller was sentenced to three years’ probation after violently attacking a 16-year-old pro-life activist on campus. She was convicted of assault, theft, and destruction of property, but the University of Santa Barbara never fired her.

Dr. Brittney Cooper

Dr. Brittney Cooper is an Assistant Professor at Rutgers University. Cooper stated that white racism is to blame for Brexit. She tweeted “White nationalism gone be the death of all of us. #Brexit” and went on to say. “The only thing I know that makes white folks vote against their own economic interest is racism. #Brexit.” In another interview to Salon she stated that white people need to start recognizing that they are “the face of the oppressor.” Cooper has also stated that Christian conservatives worship a “white supremacist Jesus.”

Dr. Julio C. Pino

Dr. Julio C. Pino is a tenured professor at Kent State University in Ohio. Dr. Pino is currently under investigation for having ties to the well known terrorist group ISIS, and allegedly recruiting students to join the Islamic State. The professor once shouted “”Death to Israel!”” at a public lecture by a former Israeli diplomat, and has been a featured columnist for several anti-Semitic and pro terrorism publications.

Charlie Kirk, Founder & Executive Director of Turning Point USA asks:

These people are teaching our students!!

Throughout the next 120 days, Turning Point USA will be running ads to make sure students, faculty, and administrators see that these professors made the Professor Watch List.

We believe these people need to be exposed. With your help, students, parents, and society at large will begin to realize what is happening in our universities.

EDITORS NOTE: Please consider a tax-deductible donation to Turning Point USA to keep this website running!

Irony: It was Alexander Hamilton who created the Electoral College

/in , , , , , /by

Thomas Grey wrote, “Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.” This is the mantra of the cast of the Broadway play “Hamilton.”

The cast of “Hamilton” found time to disrespect the Vice President-elect Mike Pence, while he was attending a performance in New York. Perhaps we can point out the folly of the unwise cast by looking at Federalist No. 68 and Alexander Hamilton’s understanding of the Electoral College.

According to Wikipedia on Federalist No. 68:

Federalist No. 68 is the continuation of Hamilton’s analysis of the presidency, in this case concerned with the mode of selecting the United States President. He argues for our modern conception of the Electoral College, though in the case of an Electoral tie, the power would be given to the House of Representatives to vote on the election of the president.

In justifying the use of the Electoral College, Hamilton focuses on a few arguments dealing with the use of the Electoral College instead of direct election. First, in explaining the role of the general populace in the election of the president, Hamilton argues that the, “sense of the people”, through the election of the electors to the Electoral College, should be a part of the process. The final say, however, lies with the electors, who Hamilton notes are,

“Men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

Therefore, the direct election of the president is left up to those who have been selected by the voters to become the electors. This indirect election is justified by Hamilton because while a republic is still served, the system allows for only a certain type of person to be elected president, preventing individuals who are unfit for a variety of reasons to be in the position of chief executive of the country.

This is reflected in his later fears about the types of people who could potentially become president. He worries that corrupted individuals could, particularly those who are either more directly associated with a foreign state, or individuals who do not have the capacity to run the country. The former is covered by Article II, Section 1, v of the United States Constitution, while the latter is covered by Hamilton in Federalist 68, where he notes that the person who will become president will have to be a person who possesses the faculties necessary to be a president, stating that,

“Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States”

Hamilton, while discussing the safeguards, is not concerned with the possibility of an unfit individual becoming president, instead he says,

It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.

Rules on the electors

Hamilton lists specific rules for the electors, which include:

  • The electors meet only within their own specific states to select the president.
  • No individuals who have “too great devotion of the President in office”
  • No individuals who currently hold elected positions within the government may serve as electors.

Read more…

President John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Jeffery B. Sessions: The Man Who Desegregated Schools and Got the Death Penalty for a KKK Murderer

/in , , , , , /by

Democrats, supported by the media, have taken a stand against Senator and U.S. Attorney General nominee Jeffrey B. Sessions, calling him a racist. Is that true or hyperbolic?

Actions speak louder than words. Democrats are focusing on words and ignoring Senator Sessions actions while a U.S. Attorney and as the Alabama Attorney General.

In a Weekly Standard column In Alabama, Jeff Sessions Desegregated Schools and Got the Death Penalty for KKK Murderer Mark Hemingway reports:

Sessions’s actual track record certainly doesn’t suggest he’s a racist. Quite the opposite, in fact. As a U.S. Attorney he filed several cases to desegregate schools in Alabama. And he also prosecuted Klansman Henry Francis Hays, son of Alabama Klan leader Bennie Hays, for abducting and killing Michael Donald, a black teenager selected at random. Sessions insisted on the death penalty for Hays. When he was later elected the state Attorney General, Sessions followed through and made sure Hays was executed. The successful prosecution of Hays also led to a $7 million civil judgment against the Klan, effectively breaking the back of the KKK in Alabama.

As a U.S. attorney, he also prosecuted a group of civil rights activists, which included a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr., for voter fraud in Perry County, Alabama. The case fell apart, and Sessions bluntly told me he “failed to make the case.” This incident has also been used to claim that Sessions is racist—but it shouldn’t be. The county has been dogged with accusations of voter fraud for decades. In 2008, state and federal officials investigated voter fraud in Perry County after “a local citizens group gathered affidavits detailing several cases in which at least one Democratic county official paid citizens for their votes, or encouraged them to vote multiple times.” A detailed story in the Tuscaloosa News reported that voting patterns in one Perry County town were also mighty suspicious in 2012: “Uniontown has a population of 1,775, according to the 2010 census but, according to the Perry County board of registrars, has 2,587 registered voters. The total votes cast there Tuesday—1,431—represented a turnout of 55 percent of the number of registered voters and a whopping 80.6 percent of the town’s population.”

Perhaps there are a lot of ideological reasons for liberals to be upset about Sessions becoming attorney general. But I don’t think the character attacks on the man can be taken seriously.

Read more…

In The Daily Signal column Why Jeff Sessions, ‘an Advocate for the Constitution,’ Has Conservatives So Excited Fred Lucas notes:

As attorney general, Jeff Sessions could go a long way toward reversing the politicization of the Justice Department that occurred under the Obama administration, Republican senators and conservative activists said Friday, after President-elect Donald Trump announced he is nominating the Alabama Republican senator for the nation’s top law enforcement job.

“Sen. Sessions’ solid understanding of the Constitution and firm commitment to the rule of law is exactly what the Justice Department needs,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. “I have worked closely with Sen. Sessions on the Judiciary Committee over these past six years and I have every confidence that he will make a great attorney general for all Americans.”

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, commended the Sessions nomination and excoriated the Justice Department under the controversial leadership of Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.

Read more…

Americans are tired of vitriol, they voted for change and got it with Donald J. Trump. 

President-elect Trump will get his U.S. Attorney General nominee. As Whitcomb Riley in his 1894 poem When Lide Married Him wrote, “‘Katy (or Katie) bar the door.”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump’s Pick for Attorney General Prosecuted These Civil Rights Cases

Left-Wing Bigotry And Hatred Is On Full Display After Trump Win / IBD

After massive disappointment of Barack Obama, time for blacks to vote outside of the box

/in , , , , , /by

In 2008, 96 per cent of black Americans voted for Barack Obama; in 2012, 94 percent of us did. We have been his most loyal constituency. As a prominent black Republican, even I voted for Obama in 2008, partly because of the historical significance of his candidacy, but also because I believed he had a better programme than John McCain and Sarah Palin.

What a disappointment the past eight years have been! Despite Obama’s mantra of “Hope” when he first ran for President, on any objective measure, blacks have fared poorly.

The black poverty rate was 25.8 per cent in 2009 and had climbed to 27.2 per cent five years later, according to the Pew Research Center. The earnings gap between blacks and whites is wider than it was in 1979, according to the Economic Policy Institute. As median incomes rose with the recovery last year, they went up more slowly for black people.

Urban blight in Baltimore
Urban blight in Baltimore CREDIT: -/NATIONAL REVIEW

Black liberal organizations and individuals have begun to criticize Obama publicly. “Black America remains in crisis when it comes to jobs and the economy… Black unemployment is twice that of white unemployment. Wages are stagnant. Many people who are working are simply not earning what they need or should earn to make ends meet”  said Marc Morial, director of liberal black think tank The National Urban League in its 2015 State of Black America report.

Meanwhile the 30 US cities with the highest murder rate strongly correlate with those with near-to-majority black populations, run by liberal Democratic mayors in Obama’s mould. This is in the context of an uptick in murders last year, the biggest single-year percentage jump since 1971, concentrated in just ten big cities. Obama’s liberal policies have only exacerbated the problems these areas face.

Police investigation underway in Chicago after a shooting
Police investigation underway in Chicago after a shooting CREDIT: -/YOUTUBE

In his home town of Chicago, the most racially segregated city in America, the number of shootings until the end of September this year was already 10 per cent higher than for the whole of 2015, following a 13 per cent increase in shooting incidents and a 12.5 per cent increase in the number of murders in 2015 on the previous year.

“I’m not the president of black America” Obama told an interviewer in 2012, in response to criticism that he had not done enough to support black businesses.

Yet he has done so much to support America’s gay community – for example, by signing executive orders to allow homosexual couples to receive social security benefits that have historically been reserved for those in traditional marriages – that in 2012 Newsweek magazine dubbed him “The First Gay President”.

And by signing executive orders to allow those in the country illegally to stay indefinitely and giving them the legal right to work despite not being US citizens, he has become a hero to many Latinos.

“When I reflect on the breadth and depth of what he has done for Latinos, it really makes him, in my mind, and in the minds of so many others, the first Latino president,” his Labour Secretary Tom Perez was quoted saying by Politico.com.

President Obama with Latino supporters
President Obama with Latino supporters CREDIT: -/AP

If I hear one more black person tell me that Obama cannot do anything to address the specific concerns of the black community because he doesn’t want it to appear like he’s doing special favours, I am going to scream.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has been ridiculed for his attitude to minorities. Yet he has laid out the terrible effects liberalism has had on the black community more effectively than any Republican since Nixon, and spent more time addressing black community issues in speeches than all Republican candidates of the last generation put together.

Donald Trump with Rev Al Sharpton and Don King in 2005
Donald Trump with Rev Al Sharpton and Don King in 2005CREDIT: PETER KRAMER/GETTY IMAGES

The solutions he puts forward – school choice and vouchers; increased access to capital for small businesses; more funding for black colleges and universities – are a good start.

He hasn’t had strong enough black advisers around him to build bridges with black communities, while the Republican Party establishment has repeatedly shown itself to be clueless about why and how it should court black electors.

Lesson to take away: after almost eight years, the black community must finally come to terms with the fact that the first black president really sees very little value in the black vote. Rather than the politics of identity, black Americans should look to those candidates who will diligently address their needs and concerns.

While making history makes us feel good, only solving the problems afflicting the black community will make us feel better.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Victory: The Plight of African Americans has Suddenly and Drastically Changed

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the UK Telegraph.

Minnesota: Conviction of Muslim refugees for joining ISIS ignored!

/in , , , , , /by

As Brenda Walker reports here at VDARE, the trial of nine Somali refugees who plotted to leave the US to join ISIS are wrapping up and long sentences are being handed down.  (Take note all of you refugee advocates who say there is no connection between the Refugee Admissions Program and Islamic terrorism.)
minnesota-isis

Here is Walker:

The Trump-obsessed press has paid little attention to important news like a major terror trial wrapping up in Minneapolis: nine Somali men were sentenced last week in Minnesota for their jihad terror crimes. But the liberal media ignores Muslims terror trials in America no matter what else is going on.

For more continue reading here.

Think about this and consider taking the challenge!

First, think about the fact that your tax dollars raised these budding jihadists. You paid for their food stamps, their medical care, their schooling, subsidized their housing, and you might even have fixed their teeth, so I ask what are you getting for your investment?

More expenses! 

Just imagine what these trials cost the taxpayers of Minnesota and America! And, more importantly, since several of them are getting 30 years plus behind bars, imagine what that costs us!

I don’t even know why we bother stopping these punks when they try to leave the US. They are cannon fodder for ISIS, might as well let them go.

What value are they for us as they languish behind bars and are fed special halal diets for decades? What will they contribute when they come out at say 55 years old? Do we put them on welfare again?

I’m wondering if when Jeff Sessions becomes Attorney General, can he stop this madness?  Just let them go and take away their US passports!

The challenge!

And, maybe to help Sessions and law enforcement generally reconsider whatever policy it is that we follow by stopping the jihadist wannabes from leaving the country, someone should do an economic analysis of what each of these Somali convicted Al Shabaab/ISIS sympathizers cost us.  I bet one of you could do this!  And, remember there are more than nine of these mostly Somali refugees who have attempted to leave the country since about 2007.

See if you can figure out what they cost the American taxpayer!

And, one more thing! I know it would never happen, but it’s fun to fantasize! I would love to see the resettlement agencies (the contractors), which failed to assimilate their refugees, financially responsible when one of their darlings breaks the law!

RELATED ARTICLES:

When governors withdraw their state from the Refugee Admissions Program, that is not the end of it!

Manchester, NH police chief: 500 refugees coming to NH, 90,000 Syrians to America

SC Governor Nikki Haley should not be Secretary of State

A quick primer for new readers: The Refugee Contractors

Ho-hum another Trump fear article reveals an interesting bit of information

La Caravane Passe et les Chiens Aboient [The Caravan Passes and the Dogs Bark]

/in , , , , , , , , /by

By Wallace Bruschweiler and William Palumbo

It’s been less than two weeks since Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton for the sought after presidency, but already the courtesan media, the paid-off Democrat party, and their militant activists are aggressively attacking President-Elect Donald J. Trump, Mike Pence his V.P.-Elect, and their Cabinet picks. So much for the advertised “honeymoon” period. The snakes and jackals already want warm blood.

Our modest advice to President-Elect Trump is simple and direct: Ignore them!

A Man of the People at Large

You, Donald J. Trump, were elected by the people of this nation (not by the media and pundits!) for one mission and one mission only: to restore the United States’ grandeur (“Make America Great Again”) after eight devastating years under the corrupt rule of a community organizer, aka Barack Hussein Obama, and his party of hardcore leftist minions. The leftovers of the Democrat Party, which all but officially includes various media outlets, pundits, and the rest of the no-brainers are truly dogs (les chiens); don’t let their barking interrupt your righteous, unstoppable American caravan (i.e., the Trump Train).

As a result of destructive policies and so-called “globalized” leadership, America’s institutions were left on terminal life support. Despite a fifth column media, George Soros-organized protests, and a guaranteed attempt to sabotage your agenda, Mr. Trump, we implore you from the depths of our souls to fulfill the following:

  • Rebuild our military might and take care of our brave veterans;
  • Directly confront radical Islamic global jihad and all its state sponsors;
  • Reestablish goodwill and solid relationships among our allies and reassure them of our dedication to peace and justice;
  • Get the economy working for everybody by repealing the artificial handicaps imposed by unnecessary, and frequently idiotic, regulations;
  • Reduce, and plan to pay back the remainder of, the astronomical debt by reigning in the size and scope of the federal government (e.g., costs related to subsidize and support unvetted refugees, welfare for the able-bodied, etc.);
  • Replace Obamacare with healthcare legislation that doesn’t punish those who pay into the system, and finally authorizes health insurance companies to offer plans across state lines;
  • Reform the education system for future generations, so as not to indoctrinate them – including a complete overhaul of the personnel at all levels of academia;
  • Secure the Supreme Court and confirm it as a protector of our core Constitutional values;
  • And finally, restore the rule of law by applying unconditionally all laws on the book, especially Constitutional checks over the Federal government.

A Guaranteed Campaign against Trump and the United States (“Les Chiens Aboient” – The Barking Dogs)

While you work to Make America Great Again, Mr. Trump, let there be no doubt that the same powers, who so unfairly characterized and smeared you during the campaign, will not relent once you are sitting in the Oval Office and fully in charge.

It’s very unfortunate, but you and your family will be subject to:

  • Attacks by the globalists and their media under the undeclared direction of George Soros and his acolytes, nationally and internationally;
  • Name calling by so-called elites, e.g. “crude,” “vulgar,” “uneducated,” “populist,” “demagogue,” etc. These self-proclaimed elites of the establishment merely project their true natures while pursuing their destructive goals;
  • Lies and denigration daily by all parties opposing American sovereignty;
  • Cheap and unfounded accusations of under-the-table deals with other heads of state, e.g. Vladimir Putin.

The enemy(ies) will prove relentless, precisely because your presidency is a threat their power and their pockets, and their designs for an interlocking and so-called unescapable global government. Be prepared for the worst, for certainly they will not give up without a fight to the bitter end.

Your Allies, Mr. President-Elect Trump

Despite the alignment of the loudest voices to destroy your administration and mission, you have the backing of the people! – millions of hardworking, tax paying, decent, educated, respectful, creative, and patriotic Americans.

In our capacities as private citizens, we will fight alongside you and the administration each step of the way, for the stakes are too high to observe silently from the sidelines. Rest assured that all of your strong supporters are willing to step up to the plate and serve in whatever capacity needed.

Mr. Trump, soon to be President Trump: you are on a mission of the people, for the people, and by the people… it is to fix this incredible mess! This mess was created by two parties, both now practically obsolete. Your candidacy and the election cycle demonstrated conclusively that the two major parties do not exist in the forms known previously. The near future will show where the chips will fall politically for the country’s two storied parties, and if they survive at all.

As the leader of the caravan, let the dogs bark and good luck! (And you need it!)

VIDEOS: Social network Gab.ai launched to combat Facebook/Twitter censorship

/in , , , /by

Gab.ai is a social network that empowers anyone to create, consume, distribute and monetize their work under the auspices of free speech.

Their Mission: To put people first and to foster discourse without hindrance and proscription, as is occurring throughout the online community.

andrew-torba-gab-ceo

Gab.ai CEO Andrew Torba

The CEO of Gab.ai is Mr. Andrew Torba, who has fought long and hard for the cause of free speech. Mr. Torba explained his vision of a free society through technology, stating:

If I had to pick a single event that pushed me over the edge to take action, I would have to say it was the suppression of conservative sources and stories by the incredibly biased Facebook Trending Topics team.

At Gab we welcome anyone who wants to speak freely.

One of our new users today is Kassy Dillon, a conservative influencer, who has experienced the censorship of Twitter directly. We are actively reaching out to influencers from all backgrounds who are searching for an alternative. We welcome everyone and want to encourage open, honest, and authentic discourse on the internet.

Gab.ai’s co-founder, Ekrem Büyükkaya, is a Muslim Turkish Kurd with team members including people of Russian Jewish ancestry, East Asian-Americans and an Indo-Canadian of Hindu beliefs.

Gab’s Chief Communications Officer Utsav Sanduja in an email notes,

“Here on Gab, we believe in a pluralistic ethos of mutual respect and toleration of each other’s views. For us, the underlying philosophy of Gab can be summed up in John Milton’s Areopagitica: “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”

At present the Gab.ai organization, which began on August 2016, has around 43,000 active users with 107,556 in wait list signups and 1.2 million gabs sent. The site is ranked 38,030 globally in regards to activity and has over 11,938,464 pageviews.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN GAB.AI

Here are introductory videos of what Gab is all about and how it works:

New Free Speech Platform To Replace Twitter/FB Revealed

Getting Started With Gab

Why I Was Arrested & Thrown In Jail By @GeorgeMasonU Police For My Anti-Terror Campaign

/in , , , , /by

As you may have heard, on November 4th I was arrested, handcuffed, and taken to jail for posting anti-terror stickers on the George Mason University campus. I was charged with a “class 6 felony for destruction of property,” threatened with five years in prison, and released 14 hours later on $8,000 bail posted by my wife. The court date is now set for February 14th, 2017.

You can read the full description of how it happened in a number of news stories below. Now I’d like to explain why I did it.

George Mason University (GMU) ranks number three in the top 10 most anti-Semitic campuses, with very active, rabidly anti-Israel student groups, who thrive in the school’s politically correct climate. The administrators’ endorsement of pro-terror activism may be explained not only by their “progressive” ideology, but also by large donations from Islamist groups tied to terror finance — two factors that have been increasingly converting American universities into Marxist madrassas. For more background, see a well-researched article about this case by Kyle Shideler.

On the weekend of November 4th, GMU was hosting a two-day national conference held by the Hamas-affiliated hate group, Students for Justice for Palestine (SJP). In this regard, prominent author David Horowitz had addressed the GMU president with an open letter, recommending to conduct an immediate inquiry into the group’s activities and remove their campus privileges and funding, in order to stop harassment and intimidation of Jewish students at George Mason. That letter remained unanswered.

While I’m not Jewish myself, it is self-evident that Jews have been the “canaries in a coal mine,” always targeted first before the rest of us are killed and maimed by totalitarian forces, be it Nazism in the 20th century or Islamofascism in the 21st. Israel is as much a part of Western civilization as Europe and America are. When Jews are targeted, the rest of us eventually fall into the crosshairs as well, as has been proven by multiple terrorist attacks in Europe and America in recent years. Stopping Islamic terrorism, therefore, is not just a matter of someone’s decency or solidarity with the Jews. We’re past the point when that was anyone’s moral choice; it’s now a matter of everyone’s self-preservation.

It’s as simple as that.

As school administrations across America remain comfortably numb to this fact for whatever financial or ideological reasons, all efforts to engage them in a civil discourse have proven futile. George Mason University, in particular, has distinguished itself with examples of enforced unanimity, suppression of free speech, and outright ideological intolerance among its students and faculty.

Therefore, David Horowitz and I teamed up in a campaign that would make GMU leaders uncomfortable enough to pay attention, look outside their ivory towers, and take in the reality. And it worked.

I designed posters that expose the genocidal nature of anti-Israel activism and the deadly consequences of supporting pro-terror groups. On the eve of the SJP gathering at George Mason, I posted stickers with these designs in various conspicuous spots on campus. They were noticed. The GMU authorities became annoyed enough to mobilize their police force to look for the perpetrators.

To admit that they objected to our message would obviously make them look bad. Instead, they charged us with “destruction of property,” claiming that we used “superglue” or “industrial glue” that was impossible to remove. That claim is false. I used standard commercially available stickers similar to mailing labels. Most of them can be removed just by carefully pulling on the edges; the remainder, if any, easily comes off without a trace with the help of Goo Gone or similar household cleaner available in any dollar store.

Did I temporarily deface GMU signs to annoy the authorities in order to deliver a message they otherwise refuse to hear? Yes. Did I permanently destroy any property? Ridiculous. It’s as if we were to write our message on top of the GMU president’s desk after being frustrated that he tossed out all our letters without reading them. That would surely annoy the GMU president, but at least he would read the message before erasing it. Now suppose that we wrote it in chalk, but the GMU president, Dr. Ángel Cabrera, claimed that we used a permanent marker causing irreparable damage, and he had to buy a new desk for $2,500. That would be a lie.

The alleged “destruction of property” is just as much a lie – but that is what has caused me the handcuffs, jail time, felony charges, and the threat of five years in prison: a lie.

What I did was non-violent and non-destructive mischief, exclusively to irritate the powers-that-be and, hopefully to provoke them and others to start talking about our message and thus acknowledging the existence of opposing viewpoints.

After I was brought to jail and put before the magistrate, he asked me how I would feel if someone were to come to my house and post stickers everywhere. I chose not to argue since the magistrate wasn’t the problem. But it was clear in my head that if I were unwittingly giving aid and comfort to terrorist supporters and someone would point it out to me in such a memorable way, then yes, I would probably be annoyed at first, but in the long run, as an honest person, I would most likely be grateful for opening my eyes to my bad judgment.

That said, I extend my apologies to the janitorial staff, hoping they had read my stickers before removing them – but not to the GMU administration unless they admit their bad judgment on issues a lot more horrifying than stickers on their campus.

Some of my friends have since pointed out to me that I did, after all, break the law. Yes, I tell them. And so did Rosa Parks when she broke the law in order to draw attention to the injustice. Her example, followed by many, proved that civil disobedience can be effective in changing unjust laws and customs. I can argue that in our case, we were handcuffed and spent a day in jail not as much for the fact of posting the stickers, but for breaking a much more important, unwritten campus law – we confronted ideological uniformity, also known as political correctness, which in today’s American universities is as oppressive as racism was in Alabama in 1955.

I went to that campus to challenge that uniformity, not to get arrested. But if being thrown in jail will help break the cowardly silence on campus, I will consider it a small price to pay for starting an honest conversation about the festering ideological intolerance, lack of free speech, and totalitarian impulses at GMU and other American universities.

Below is a list of links to media stories about this case. You can help by promoting them in social media, spreading the word, and pressuring GMU to drop the charges:

• GotNews: BREAKING: Ex-Soviet Dissident ARRESTED, JAILED, & CHARGED For 1st Amend.-Protected @GeorgeMasonU Anti-Terror Posters
• FrontPage: Pro-Israel Artist Threatened With 5 Years In Jail For Anti-Terror Posters At GMU
• PJ Media: People’s Cube Artist Faces 5 Years in Jail for Hanging Up Anti-Terror Posters at GMU
• CounterJihad: George Mason University Creates A “Safe Space” for Terror Supporters; Throws Anti-Jihad Activist in Jail
• American Thinker: The totalitarian impulse flourishes at George Mason University
• Western Free Press: Soviet Dissident Arrested at GMU for Protesting Against Murderers of Jews
• Gateway Pundit: Pro-Israel Artist Threatened with 5 Years in Jail for Campus Anti-Terror Posters
• Pamela Geller: Artist Threatened With 5 Years in Jail for Anti-Terror Posters at GMU
• Jihad Watch: Pro-Israel artist threatened with 5 years in jail for anti-terror posters at GMU
• Dr. Rich Swier: Oleg Atbashian arrested, faces five years in prison for supporting Israel
• Conservative Treehouse: We Stand With Oleg – Artist Threatened With 5 Years In Jail For Anti-Terror Posters…
• IOTW Report: Oleg From The People’s Cube threatened with 5 years in jail
• Patriot Retort: The last refuge of the closed mind

Additionally, you are welcome to download, print, and hang these two posters on GMU and other top 10 anti-Semitic and terror-supporting campuses:

oleg-posters

Medium-sized JPG:
Hamas Puppets | Terrorist War

Large PDF (scalable to any size):
Hamas Puppets | Terrorist War

Stay tuned for more.

EDITORS NOTE: David Horowitz has promised to take care of Oleg’s legal expenses. But if anyone wants to support him so that he can spend more time on these and similar projects, please go to a donation page on the People’s Cube: http://thepeoplescube.com/includes/donate.php

No Sanctuary from the Rule of Law

/in , , , , /by

Democrat Mayors in all those tiny little blue districts that lost the 2016 elections are revolting after the election and not just against the incoming administration or Donald Trump. They are revolting against the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Rule of Law, in a manner which amounts to sedition against all U.S. citizens. In a word, they are committing acts of treason!

Treason is defined in U.S. Law as “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason.”

In a column published in September of 2015, I explained the constitutional underpinning for “federal supremacy,” where it is in the Constitution, why it is there and what it does and does not mean.

In short, not everything the federal government does has the force of law behind it, much less supremacy over the states. But some things absolutely do, immigration and naturalization being one of those things.

Because Immigration and Naturalization is an exclusive enumerated power of Congress under Article I of the U.S. Constitution and Congress has established a uniform code for Immigration and Naturalization within that constitutional authority, these Federal Laws do indeed have “federal supremacy” over all states on the matter of immigration and naturalization.

Treason, Sedition and Subversion

Under 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 – TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES – federal laws prevent anyone from committing acts of treason, sedition or subversive activities against the people of the United States.

  • Sedition – “incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.”
  • Subversive activities – “seeking or intended to subvert an established system or institution.”
  • Both of which are “acts of treason” against the U.S. Constitutional form of government.

According Department of Homeland Security documents, the list of sanctuary cities in America is much longer than most Americans know. Hundreds of U.S. cities have proclaimed themselves sanctuary cities, or taken a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy towards illegal migrants.

In the days following the 2016 elections, more than a dozen mayors have gone on television to thumb their noses at Federal Immigration Laws, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, all in protection of non-citizens who broke and entered into our country illegally. Each of these mayors was admitting their guilt by those statements, admitting that they had no intention of upholding and enforcing the Rule of Law in their cities and would instead, continue to commit acts of sedition, subversion and treason regardless of the outcome of the 2016 elections.

Further, several law enforcement agencies, such as the LAPD, have also stepped to a TV camera to go on record refusing to uphold or enforce U.S. Immigration Laws. Last, every news agency that has refused to report the truth on this subject by separating legal citizens from illegal migrants in their reporting and backing leftist mayors in these sanctuary cities is guilty of misprision of treason – “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.”

Leftist politicians, academics, lawyers and judges have for years proclaimed that “state nullification” of federal laws is “unconstitutional.” Yet in the case of these sanctuary cities, these mayors, city councils and governors are in fact abusing and overstepping their legal authority by unilaterally “nullifying” U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Laws within their cities and states.

It all adds up to anarchy placing the United States on the brink of civil war between the lawful and the lawless. These leftist Democrats are protecting, aiding, abetting and harboring fugitives from Federal Law, all because they have mistakenly bet their own political futures on illegal migrants, who are just about the only people left in America who still vote for them.

The incoming administration has much more to deal with than just securing our borders. They will have to secure numerous U.S. cities as well, allowed to become safe havens for illegal activities over the years, mostly by Democrat politicians in those areas.

The first step must be to place all on notice of intent to enforce our laws. Next, all federal funding to states that allow sanctuary cities to exist must cease immediately and until such time that state and local officials begin to respect the Rule of Constitutional Law again. Last, every elected, appointed or hired official that refuses to uphold and enforce the laws of this land are committing crimes and they can and must be charged, arrested and held legally accountable.

If we won’t enforce our laws, then we don’t have any laws. Without the Rule of Constitutional Law, we are not a secure sovereign nation. Where lawlessness exists, anarchy reigns and nobody is safe or secure.

It’s accountability time for these people who act against our citizens! It’s now or never!

Support for Trump Fed by Near-Universal Frustration that Government Ignores the People

/in , , , , /by

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17, 2016 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — While there is much post-election interest in a small demographic of voters who shifted from voting for Barack Obama to Donald Trump, an in-depth study conducted in the midst of the election finds that Trump’s victory was buoyed by a broad-based, nearly universal crisis of confidence in how the federal government makes decisions.

The central critique voters express is not about policy or ideology: it is that government ignores the people – both their interests and their views – in favor of special interests, campaign donors, and their parties. Among Trump supporters, these views are especially intense.

The study of 2,411 registered voters was conducted by University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation (PPC), fielded by Nielsen Scarborough and released today by Voice Of the People.

A remarkable nine-in-ten voters agreed that ‘Elected officials think more about the interests of their campaign donors than the common good of the people.’ There were, however, differences in intensity. Among all voters 63 percent agreed strongly, while among Trump supporters, 72 percent agreed strongly, and among the half of Trump supporters who said they were not only dissatisfied with government but angry, 85 percent agreed strongly. Similar numbers agreed that ‘Members of Congress think mostly about their party, not what is good for the country.’

This profound dissatisfaction with government has reached new heights in response to longstanding trend line questions. Asked whether government ‘is run for the benefit of all the people’ or is ‘pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves’ in the 1960s only a minority said that it was run by big interests. In recent years this number has risen to eight-in-ten. In the current study this leapt to an unprecedented 92 percent. Among angry Trump supporters, 99 percent said the government is run for big interests, rather than the people.

“Trump effectively mirrored back to voters what they have been saying for years, that they feel like they are being ignored in a system dominated by special interests,” said PPC Director Steven Kull, who directed the survey. “That he said he was self-financing and was denounced by leaders in his own party, strengthened his claim that he was independent and capable of shaking up the system.”

Trump has stated, “We are fighting for every citizen that believes that government should serve the people, not the donors and not special interests.” And, “I am working for you.”

As a value in itself, and as an antidote to the influence of special interests, 85 percent of voters said that the people should have more influence. Asked how much influence the people do have, the mean response was 3.5—2.4 among angry Trump supporters. Asked how much influence the people should have on a scale of 0 to 10 the mean response was 8.0.

More than eight-in-ten said that there is not an adequate system in place for the voice of the people to be heard in Congress. Equally large numbers say that elections are not an adequate system and that the ‘government should make an active effort in between elections to find out how the people view the issues the government is dealing with.’

To that end, nearly eight-in-ten, including both Clinton and Trump supporters, favored establishing large representative, scientifically-selected citizen advisory panels to get briefed on the issues government is facing and provide their recommendations directly to Congress.

This public demand for a greater voice, which PPC has been studying for more than 15 years, led to the establishment of Voice Of the People, and its campaign effort to create a citizen advisory panel, called a Citizen Cabinet, in every congressional district and state.

Other ideas for reforming government also received robust support. More than eight-in-ten favored reducing the amount of money flowing into politics. Three quarters favored having citizens or judges do congressional redistricting to counter political gerrymandering. Large majorities agree that members of Congress stay in office too long because there are no term limits.

Asked to, ‘Imagine the Founders of the American republic were somehow able to observe how the U.S. government is operating today’ and to say how well they would think ‘the U.S. government is fulfilling the vision they had’ more than eight-in-ten said not very well (35 percent) or not well at all (49 percent). Among Trump supporters the numbers saying not well at all was even higher at 69 percent.

“At present the American people are questioning the legitimacy of the U.S. system of government,” Kull added. “Unless elected officials find a way to restore voter confidence that their views count more than special interests, their frustration is likely to boil over in a variety of ways.”

The report can be found at: http://vop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Dissatisfaction_Report.pdf

The questionnaire can be found at: http://vop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Dissatisfaction_Quaire.pdf

ABOUT VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

Voice Of the People is a nonpartisan organization that uses innovative methods and technology to help give the American people a more effective voice in government.